TDS Credit must be given even if TDS Certificate is not available/ entry is not shown in Form 26AS

The assessee claimed credit for TDS which was denied by the AO on the ground that the claim did not match the entries shown in Form No. 26AS and that there was a discrepancy. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the assessee would be entitiled to credit to the extent shown in the computer system of the department. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD:

The AO is not justified in denying credit for TDS on the ground that the TDS is not reflected in the computer generated Form 26AS. In Yashpal Sahwney 293 ITR 539 the Bombay High Court has noted the difficulty faced by taxpayers in the matter of credit of TDS and held that even if the deductor had not issued a TDS certificate, still the claim of the assessee has to be considered on the basis of the evidence produced for deduction of tax at source. The Revenue is empowered to recover tax from the person responsible if he had not deducted tax at source or after deducting failed to deposit with Central Government. The Delhi High Court has in Court On Its Own Motion Vs. CIT 352 ITR 273 directed the department to ensure that credit is given to the assessee even where the deductor had failed to upload the correct details in Form 26AS on the basis of evidence produced before the department. Therefore, the department is required to give credit for TDS once valid TDS certificate had been produced or even where the deductor had not issued TDS certificates on the basis of evidence produced by assessee regarding deduction of tax at source and on the basis of indemnity bond.

Note: See also 3i Infotech Limited (file attached) where it was held “merely because the Department’s system does not indicate the TDS refund, it cannot be held that the assessee should be compelled to deposit the amount once again. It is for the Department to check the error in its system or point out fallacy in the assessee’s claim. There can be no question of penalizing the assessee for no fault committed by it”.

Related Judgements

1. Rupee Finance vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
   Where the assessee purchased shares at a price below the market price and the question was whether the difference between the market price and the purchase price can be assessed as unexplained investment u/s 69 or as a benefit u/s 28(iv) of the Act, held: (1) Where there was…
2. Evonik Degussa India P. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
   The assessee has no borrowings and so there is no interest liability. Even if the payments have been made by the AE beyond the normal credit period, there is no interest cost to the assessee. Moreover, there is no such agreement whereby interest is to be charged on such…
3. Dresser-Rand India Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
   A cost contribution arrangement has to be consistent with the arm’s length principle. The assessee’s share of overall contribution to costs must be consistent with the benefits expected to be received, as an independent enterprise would have assigned to the contribution in hypothetically similar situation. The TPO’s objection that…